[Samba] Calculating file size.
Hello! As it happens I am having some real nightmares with this too. Using NETGEAR ND520 NAS devices [Yes! I know - rod for own back...] But the fact it is a Linux device sold me ahead of a W2K Appliance Win2K reports: Folder #1 19,969 Files, 1578 folders Size: 2.36Gb S-O-D: 11.3Gb Notes: This is a user's 'Home Drive' Lots of disparate files Directories Folder #2 15,151 Files, 595 folders Size: 292Mb S-O-D: 7.54Gb Notes: As above Folder #3 114 Files, 1 folder Size: 857Mb S-O-D: 895Mb Notes: JAVA developer's archive - all but one are ZIP files Sure, I'll be obseleting these NAS soon but my plan was to build a custom Linux Samba server to handle the task. Now I'm not so sure -DG IT Manager ISV -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Calculating file size.
At 17:13 18/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: Hello! As it happens I am having some real nightmares with this too. Using NETGEAR ND520 NAS devices [Yes! I know - rod for own back...] But the fact it is a Linux device sold me ahead of a W2K Appliance [snip] If those S-O-D figures are real ( I mean, W2K is not making them up ), you'd rather use ReiserFS for your Linux Samba server -- it would save you *tons* of disk Sure, I'll be obseleting these NAS soon but my plan was to build a custom Linux Samba server to handle the task. Now I'm not so sure Why ? -DG IT Manager ISV -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Calculating file size.
OK. Maybe the 'not-so-sure' was a bit provocative on this list. G As I can't afford a 'Filer', Samba is ~obviously~ my best option. WinXP reports the same figures though - maybe the answer is another DLT drive direct onto the (New-Improved!) Samba box; rather than mapping drives to the W2K backup server. Nevertheless, the sizes can't be *real* - according to the stats my drive is 3 times bigger than it was when I bought it! Point taken on the journaling FS. Can anyone compare small file performance between RH ext3 and ReiserFS? Made me think - thanks for the input -DG -Original Message- From: Jose Luis Tallon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 June 2003 6:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Samba] Calculating file size. At 17:13 18/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: Hello! As it happens I am having some real nightmares with this too. Using NETGEAR ND520 NAS devices [Yes! I know - rod for own back...] But the fact it is a Linux device sold me ahead of a W2K Appliance [snip] If those S-O-D figures are real ( I mean, W2K is not making them up ), you'd rather use ReiserFS for your Linux Samba server -- it would save you *tons* of disk Sure, I'll be obseleting these NAS soon but my plan was to build a custom Linux Samba server to handle the task. Now I'm not so sure Why ? -DG IT Manager ISV -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Calculating file size.
hi, Here's an interesting one... If I view the files on my Samba server, the file size is reported differently depending on if I'm looking from WinXX or Win2k. That is, if I do a 'properties' on a file with Windows ME for instance, I see 'Size' and 'Size on Disk' numbers that seem reasonable. Size on Disk is slightly larger which seems reasonable. But if I look from Win2k, the Size on Disk is huge! A 30KB file will show up that way in the Size entry, but be 1MB in the Size on Disk entry. I wondered if this could be because Windows thinks samba is an NTFS server, but I note that even looking at local files in Win2K on FAT32 shows this sort of discrepancy. I had never noticed this until today when a list member asked me about why his tape backups of the samba shares were filling the tape s quickly. I don't have the problem running the same tape drive from ME, but he's using 2k and going through tape like there's no tomorrow. So I'm guessing that the tape software is using the 'Size on Disk' information as it calculates what space is left on the tape. Can anyone shed light on this and suggest a solution? -- .. . Jason C. Leach .. Current PGP/GPG Key ID: 43AD2024 -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Calculating file size.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:55:29PM -0800, Jason C. Leach wrote: hi, Here's an interesting one... If I view the files on my Samba server, the file size is reported differently depending on if I'm looking from WinXX or Win2k. That is, if I do a 'properties' on a file with Windows ME for instance, I see 'Size' and 'Size on Disk' numbers that seem reasonable. Size on Disk is slightly larger which seems reasonable. But if I look from Win2k, the Size on Disk is huge! A 30KB file will show up that way in the Size entry, but be 1MB in the Size on Disk entry. I wondered if this could be because Windows thinks samba is an NTFS server, but I note that even looking at local files in Win2K on FAT32 shows this sort of discrepancy. I had never noticed this until today when a list member asked me about why his tape backups of the samba shares were filling the tape s quickly. I don't have the problem running the same tape drive from ME, but he's using 2k and going through tape like there's no tomorrow. So I'm guessing that the tape software is using the 'Size on Disk' information as it calculates what space is left on the tape. Can anyone shed light on this and suggest a solution? Actully, this is my fault. Samba lies on a WNT/W2K size on disk query because someone at a NAS company noticed the WNT/2k use more efficient read transfers (I think it was) if this size is large. The tape backup software can't actually read this extra data so I don't know why it's using the size on disk to allocate blocks. You can change this be modifying the value in include/local.h /* Allocation roundup. */ #define SMB_ROUNDUP_ALLOCATION_SIZE 0x10 to a smaller value and recompiling. It hasn't caused trouble enough to become a runtime parameter. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
